Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Alleviating the Hubble Tension via Cosmological Time Dilation in the meVSL Model

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a single varying-speed-of-light parameter b can raise the early-universe Hubble constant to about 73 km/s/Mpc while making supernova time dilation deviate from the standard (1+z) law as n=1-b/4.

desk verdict Same-parameter story is appealing, but the paper's own equations put z_drag above z_star for b>0, undercutting the headline H0≈73. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08840 v1 pith:JNX4A4KY submitted 2025-09-02 physics.gen-ph

Seokcheon Lee This is my paper
classification physics.gen-ph PACS 98.80.Es
keywords HubbletensionvaryingspeedoflightmeVSLsoundhorizondragepochcosmologicaltimedilationtypeIasupernovaeFisherforecast
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that one parameter in a minimally extended varying-speed-of-light model can ease the Hubble tension without new fields. The parameter b makes the effective speed of light scale as c = c0 a^(b/4), and it does two things at once: it shortens the sound horizon at the baryon drag epoch, which raises the CMB/BAO-inferred Hubble constant, and it changes the cosmological time-dilation law for distant transients from (1+z) to (1+z)^(1-b/4). For b=0.03 the drag redshift rises to about 1108, the sound horizon falls to about 135 Mpc, and the inferred H0 becomes roughly 73 km/s/Mpc. The Fisher forecasts show that a DES-like supernova survey can detect sub-percent deviations of the time-dilation exponent, so the same parameter is testable in the time domain. If the paper is right, a single measurement channel—supernova light-curve widths—can confirm or refute the mechanism that resolves the H0 discrepancy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the meVSL scaling index b, defined by c = c0 a^(b/4). Through modified Friedmann equations and a b-dependent Thomson scattering rate, b shifts photon decoupling downward and the baryon drag redshift upward, shortening the comoving sound horizon r_drag. The connection to H0 is made by the Planck-calibrated near-invariance of H0 times r_drag; the time-domain connection is n=1-b/4. The drag optical depth condition tau_drag(z)=1 selects z_drag(b), and the Fisher information from light-curve widths sets the detectability.

What would settle it

A full meVSL CMB spectrum calculation: if at b=0.03 the predicted TT/EE/TE spectra fit Planck significantly worse than LCDM, the assumed H0 times r_drag invariance fails and the headline H0 about 73 is falsified. Independently, a supernova survey measuring the time-dilation exponent with total uncertainty near 0.003 that returns n=1.000 plus or minus 0.003 would rule out b about 0.04 and above, since the model predicts n=1-b/4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated the way the author would state it, is that the meVSL parameter b is not an isolated tweak: the same index that rescales the apparent speed of light changes two independent observables in the same direction. It raises the drag redshift (z_drag about 1108 for b=0.03), lowers the drag-epoch sound horizon to about 135 Mpc, and thereby raises the early-universe H0 inferred from the nearly constant Planck product H0 times r_drag to about 73 km/s/Mpc. The same b lowers the cosmological time-dilation exponent from 1 to n=1-b/4, so supernova light curves stretch less than the standard (1+z) law as redshift grows. Using Fisher forecasts, the paper quantifies how many SNe Ia a

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline H0 about 73 rests on assuming Planck's constraint on H0 times r_drag is unchanged in meVSL, so shrinking r_drag raises H0 without a full meVSL Boltzmann check of the rest of the CMB.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single positive b simultaneously raises H0 toward 73 km/s/Mpc and lowers the time-dilation exponent to n=1-b/4, making the two anomalies two faces of one parameter.
  • A 3-sigma detection of n=0.990 requires about 225 SNe with statistical errors only, and about 450 with a systematic floor of 0.05, within reach of current and upcoming surveys.
  • Detecting |n-1| of 0.001 at 3-sigma needs tens of thousands of SNe, marking the regime only next-generation surveys can access.
  • Joint fitting of r_drag from CMB/BAO and n from supernova durations provides a self-consistent cross-check of b, independent of distance-ladder systematics.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Implicit in the paper but not developed: the same b rescales the redshift inferred from spectra, so existing CTD measurements that use the standard redshift mapping may be slightly biased; reanalyzing DES with the b-dependent redshift could shift the best-fit n.
  • The paper lists BBN and fine-structure constant as complementary probes but does not fold their limits into the allowed range of b; doing so would likely close off part of the parameter space and sharpen the prediction.
  • If a near-future survey measures n=1 with total error below 0.003 while independent late-time measurements keep H0 near 73, the dual-parameter link would be broken and the meVSL resolution of the Hubble tension would be disfavored even before a Boltzmann calculation.
  • The H0 about 73 number should be read as an illustrative mapping until a self-consistent meVSL recombination and CMB spectrum calculation is done; that calculation is the natural next step and would turn the claim into a full cosmological model test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a single parameter b in the minimally extended varying-speed-of-light (meVSL) model can simultaneously reduce the baryon drag-epoch sound horizon and modify the cosmological time-dilation exponent, n = 1 - b/4. For b=0.03 it quotes z_drag ≈ 1108, r_drag ≈ 135 Mpc, and H0 ≈ 73 km/s/Mpc, thereby 'alleviating' the Hubble tension. It also presents Fisher forecasts for DES-like samples to estimate the number of SNe needed to detect n ≠ 1. The core sections (3.1.2-3.1.4) derive the b-dependence of z_star, z_drag, r_drag and map the latter to H0; Section 4 imports the CTD scaling and performs forecasting.

Significance. If the claimed relation between b, r_drag, and H0 were correct, the paper would provide a minimal, testable resolution of the Hubble tension with a distinct time-domain prediction. The Fisher-forecast framework is clearly laid out and easily reproducible, and the paper is candid about the need for a future Boltzmann calculation. However, the central illustration is internally inconsistent: the model's own approximate formulas violate the physical ordering of recombination and drag epoch for the parameter values used to claim H0 ≈ 73. Since the headline result depends on this ordering and on an imported ΛCDM relation that is not rederived in meVSL, the manuscript's central claims are not established as they stand.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1.2 and §3.1.3, Eqs. (18) and (21)] There is an internal inconsistency in the redshift evolution used to compute r_drag. Eq. (18) gives z_star(b) ≈ 1090 − 3808 b, so z_star decreases with b (e.g., z_star ≈ 1052 at b=0.01 and ≈ 976 at b=0.03). In contrast, Eq. (21) gives z_drag increasing with b: z_drag(0.01)=1095 and z_drag(0.03)=1106.7. Thus for any b ≳ 0.0075, z_drag > z_star, reversing the physical order in which recombination precedes baryon drag. The paper itself states in §3.1.3 that the z_star−z_drag offset 'should be recomputed rather than held fixed,' but the two approximations actually used produce a crossing. Consequently the r_drag values quoted in §3.1.4 and Fig. 2 are evaluated at a redshift that is not a physically meaningful drag epoch, and the resulting H0 ≈ 73 is unsupported.
  2. [§3.1.4, H0–r_drag mapping] The mapping from a reduced r_drag to H0 ≈ 73 assumes that the Planck constraint on H0 r_drag is unchanged in meVSL. This is an imported ΛCDM relation (Ref. [59]) applied to a model that modifies recombination (z_star, z_drag), the Thomson scattering rate, and the sound speed. The influence on CMB spectra, Silk damping, and the acoustic scale is not computed, and the paper explicitly defers a full Boltzmann calculation to future work. The linear scaling H0 ∝ 1/r_drag is therefore a conjecture, not a derived consequence. This is load-bearing for the paper's main claim, so the claim is not yet supported.
  3. [§4.2 and Eq. (25)] The paper cites the DES i-band time-dilation measurement n = 0.988 ± 0.008 as independent support for b ≈ 0.048. However, Eq. (25) states that for b ≠ 0 the redshift mapping itself changes, so a self-consistent CTD fit must use zeff(b), not the standard redshift. The quoted DES analysis uses standard redshifts; applying it to infer b without recomputing the redshift transformation is not independent. Moreover, b ≈ 0.048 combined with Eq. (18) gives z_star ≈ 907, while Eq. (21) extrapolates to z_drag ≈ 1110, again violating z_drag < z_star and underscoring that the model's internal consistency is broken for just the parameter values promoted as preferred.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and §3.1.3] The abstract quotes z_drag ≃ 1108 for b=0.03, while Eq. (21) lists (0.03, 1106.7). Please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [§4.3.3 / Fig. 5] The per-band forecast is not reproducible: the text does not specify the photometric error model or the redshift distribution used for the g, r, i, z bands, yet Figure 5 presents precise required-sample numbers. A brief table of assumed noise parameters would help.
  3. [Eq. (7) and notation] The notation H in Eq. (5) is defined as the standard GR Hubble parameter while the text also uses H for the physical expansion rate; this becomes confusing in Eqs. (17)-(20). Please use a distinct symbol (e.g., H_GR) or clarify consistently.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Partial circularity: the time-dilation probe n=1-b/4 is imported from the author's own prior papers and then used to claim independent support, while the sound-horizon and Fisher calculations are self-contained.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4.1, Eq. (26); used in Abstract and Section 4.2]
    "In meVSL the scaling of c with a modifies the exponent to n = 1 − b/4 , (26) so that n ̸= 1 encodes an effective, observational rescaling of cosmic time rather than a violation of relativistic time dilation."

    The n-b relation is not derived in this paper; it is attributed to the same author's prior papers [16, 23-25]. It is load-bearing because Section 4.2 converts the DES measurement n=0.988±0.008 into b≈0.048 and calls this 'independently supported by supernova observations' for the b>0 that is claimed to alleviate the Hubble tension. Thus the time-domain check is calibrated by the self-cited framework it is supposed to test; within this paper the link is an input, not an independent prediction. The r_drag side is computed here, so the circularity is partial.

full rationale

Most of the r_drag calculation is self-contained: Eqs. (8)-(10) define the sound horizon, Appendix A provides Xe templates, and Section 3.1.3 solves τ_drag=1 to obtain z_drag(b) and r_drag(b). The Fisher forecast is a well-posed calculation of required sample sizes, and b is used as an illustration rather than fitted to H0, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The H0≈73 statement is a forward application of the external Planck constraint H0 r_drag ≈ const, not a fit, and therefore is not circular, though it rests on the unverified assumption that this invariant survives in meVSL; the paper itself calls for 'self-consistent Boltzmann calculations' in the Conclusion. The moderate score comes from the n=1-b/4 relation: it is imported from the author's prior work and then used as the bridge from DES time-dilation data to b, making the CTD probe partly a self-citation chain rather than an independent derivation. A separate, non-circular correctness problem is flagged: Eq. (18) has z* decreasing with b while Eq. (21) has z_drag increasing, so for b>0 one gets z_drag > z*, reversing the physical recombination/drag ordering; this invalidates the r_drag values and the H0≈73 illustration, but it is an internal inconsistency rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the model's b-scaling postulates, on an imported Planck H0 * r_drag relation, and on an unmodified LCDM recombination history. The free parameters are the theory parameter b, the recombination template values, and the survey error model. No independent first-principles justification for the meVSL scaling is provided in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • b = 0.016, 0.02, 0.03 (illustrations); 0.048 +/- 0.032 from DES i-band in Sec 4.2
    Single meVSL scaling parameter; chosen to illustrate H0 about 73; not derived from first principles.
  • tanh recombination template parameters = z_t about 1090, Delta z about 80-100, X_res about 2e-4 to 1e-3; z1 about 1090, Delta z1 about 90
    Hand-selected in Appendix A and used to compute X_e(z) in drag epoch integrals; no b-dependent recalibration despite its importance for r_drag.
  • sigma_0 = 0.05
    Assumed redshift-dependent light-curve width error in Eq. (28); drives the required supernova counts in the Fisher forecast.
  • sigma_sys = 0.01, 0.05
    Assumed systematic floors added in quadrature in Eq. (30); changes required supernova counts substantially near n=1.
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper meVSL scaling relations: c=c0 a^{b/4}, G=G0 a^b, e=e0 a^{-b/4}, h=h0 a^{-b/4} (Table 1).
    Model postulate defining meVSL; all derived consequences (r_drag, n) inherit it. No independent derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption Modified Friedmann equations Eqs. (2)-(6) with Bianchi conservation Eq. (4).
    Background equations of the model, summarized from prior work; basis for H_tilde and z_drag calculations.
  • domain assumption Thomson cross section scales as sigma_T = sigma_T0 (1+z)^{b/2} and baryon number density n_e is unchanged (Eqs. 11-16).
    Used to derive decoupling and drag redshifts; scaling is model-specific and imported from prior papers.
  • domain assumption Planck CMB data constrain H0 * r_drag to a nearly constant value (Section 3.1.4, citing [59]).
    External empirical benchmark imported unchanged; load-bearing for converting r_drag reduction into H0 about 73.
  • ad hoc to paper Standard LCDM recombination history X_e(z) from Eq. (37) is used for b != 0.
    The drag epoch integral uses unmodified recombination; the paper concedes a full Boltzmann treatment with updated X_e is still needed.
invented entities (1)
  • meVSL b-parameter effective rescaling of fundamental constants independent evidence
    purpose: Single knob that simultaneously shortens r_drag and sets n=1-b/4
    The model predicts n<1 and a higher z_drag for b>0, which are observable handles, but current DES full-sample data do not confirm them; the i-band subset gives a weak 1.5-sigma hint.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Alleviating the Hubble Tension via Cosmological Time Dilation in the meVSL Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JNX4A4KY

@misc{pith2026250908840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Alleviating the Hubble Tension via Cosmological Time Dilation in the meVSL Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JNX4A4KY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08840}
}
read the original abstract

We show that a minimally extended varying-speed-of-light (meVSL) cosmology can alleviate the Hubble tension through a single parameter, b. This parameter both shortens the sound horizon at the drag epoch and modifies cosmological time dilation for transients, Delta_t_obs=(1+z)^n Delta_t_emit with n=1-b/4. The reduction in r_d raises the early-universe-inferred H_0 from CMB/BAO analyses, while departures of n from unity provide an independent, time-domain probe of b. Using Fisher forecasts for a DES-like survey, we estimate the supernova sample size required to detect sub-percent deviations in n under realistic statistical and systematic uncertainties. For illustration, b=0.03 yields z_drag = 1108 and r_d = 135 Mpc, consistent with H_0=~73 km/s/Mpc. We conclude that current and upcoming time-domain surveys can place competitive constraints on b and, jointly with CMB/BAO, provide a self-consistent observational test of meVSL's ability to alleviate the H_0 discrepancy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: Decoupling redshift z∗ versus the meVSL parameter b. As b increases, the modified condition Γ˜T = H˜ is met at lower redshift [cf. Eq. (15)–(17)]. Right: Drag–epoch sound horizon ˜rdrag versus b. The increase of zdrag with b Eqs. (19) and (20) leads to a reduced ˜rdrag, consistent with the BAO standard–ruler interpretation. 3.1.4 Alleviating Hubble tension BAO provide a standard ruler that depends on ˜rdrag. A… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Model predictions for the drag–epoch sound horizon as a function of drag redshift in meVSL. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Required number of SNe Ia for detecting deviations from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as Figure 3, but including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated SNe counts per filter needed to detect a 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. QCD CP-violation scenario for a revised cosmological dynamics: analysis of the binned Pantheon Sample of Super Novae Ia

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 reject novelty 3.0 of 10

    The paper fits a dark-matter–dark-energy interaction model from a complex scalar field to binned Pantheon SNeIa data and claims to explain the redshift-running H0, but the derivation's equations are internally inconsistent.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [59]

    Evslin, A

    J. Evslin, A. A. Sen and Ruchika, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.10, 103511 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103511 [arXiv:1711.01051 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [1]

    Ryder, Introduction to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    L. Ryder, Introduction to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    work page 2009

  3. [2]

    J. N. Islam, An Introduction to Mathematical Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [3]

    J. V. Narlikar, An Introduction to Cosmology(Cambridge University Press, 3rd Ed 2002)

    work page 2002

  5. [4]

    M. P. Hobson, G. P. Efstathiou, and A. N. Lasenby, General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Roos, Introduction to Cosmology(John Wiley and Sons, 2015)

    M. Roos, Introduction to Cosmology(John Wiley and Sons, 2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Perivolaropoulos and F

    L. Perivolaropoulos and F. Skara, New Astron. Rev. 95, 101659 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 [arXiv:2105.05208 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Abdalla, G

    E. Abdalla, G. Franco Abell´ an, A. Aboubrahim, A. Agnello, O. Akarsu, Y. Akrami, G. Alestas, D. Aloni, L. Amendola and L. A. Anchordoqui, et al. JHEAp 34, 49-211 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2022.04.002 [arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 75 references
  1. [8]

    Di Valentino, J

    E. Di Valentino, J. Levi Said, A. Riess, A. Pollo, V. Poulin, A. G´ omez-Valent, A. Weltman, A. Palmese, C. D. Huang and C. van de Bruck, et al. [arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    Efstathiou, [arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]]

    G. Efstathiou, [arXiv:2007.10716 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2007 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Schosser, P

    B. Schosser, P. R. Mello, M. Quartin and B. M. Schaefer, doi:10.33232/001c.129700 [arXiv:2402.19100 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  4. [11]

    Perivolaropoulos, Phys

    L. Perivolaropoulos, Phys. Rev. D 110, no.12, 123518 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123518 [arXiv:2408.11031 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J. L. Bernal, L. Verde and A. G. Riess, JCAP 10, 019 (2016) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/019 [arXiv:1607.05617 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Raveri, Phys

    M. Raveri, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.8, 083524 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083524 [arXiv:1902.01366 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Poulin, T

    V. Poulin, T. L. Smith, T. Karwal and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, no.22, 221301 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.221301 [arXiv:1811.04083 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Jedamzik and L

    K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, no.18, 181302 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.181302 [arXiv:2004.09487 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Lee, JCAP 08, 054 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/054 [arXiv:2011.09274 [astro-ph.CO]]

    S. Lee, JCAP 08, 054 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/054 [arXiv:2011.09274 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101286 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101286 [arXiv:2212.03728 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2023

  11. [18]

    Lee, Mon

    S. Lee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 522, no.3, 3248-3255 (2023) doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1190 [arXiv:2301.06947 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Lee, Mon

    S. Lee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, no.3, 4019-4023 (2023) doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2084 [arXiv:2302.09735 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Lee, Astronomy 3, 100-113 (2024) doi:10.3390/astronomy3020007 [arXiv:2406.05990 [physics.gen- ph]]

    S. Lee, Astronomy 3, 100-113 (2024) doi:10.3390/astronomy3020007 [arXiv:2406.05990 [physics.gen- ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101703 (2024) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101703 [arXiv:2407.09532 [physics.gen-ph]]

    2024

  15. [22]

    Lee, Found

    S. Lee, Found. Phys. 53, 40 (2023) doi:10.1007/s10701-023-00682-1 [arXiv:2303.13772 [physics.gen- ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Lee, Particles 7, no.2, 309-326 (2024) doi:10.3390/particles7020019 [arXiv:2406.02556 [physics.gen-ph]]

    S. Lee, Particles 7, no.2, 309-326 (2024) doi:10.3390/particles7020019 [arXiv:2406.02556 [physics.gen-ph]]. 14

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Lee, Class

    S. Lee, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, no.2, 025026 (2025) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ada2d5 [arXiv:2412.19049 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101947 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101947

    2025

  19. [26]

    Leibundgut, Astrophys

    B. Leibundgut, Astrophys. J. Lett. 466, L21 (1996) doi:10.1086/310164 [arXiv:astro-ph/9605134 [astro-ph]]

    1996 arXiv

  20. [27]

    A. G. Riess et al. [Supernova Search Team], Astron. J. 114, 722 (1997) doi:10.1086/118506 [arXiv:astro-ph/9707260 [astro-ph]]

    1997 arXiv

  21. [28]

    R. J. Foley, A. V. Filippenko, D. C. Leonard, A. G. Riess, P. Nugent and S. Perlmutter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 626, L11-L14 (2005) doi:10.1086/431241 [arXiv:astro-ph/0504481 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Blondin and J

    S. Blondin and J. L. Tonry, Astrophys. J. 666, 1024-1047 (2007) doi:10.1086/520494 [arXiv:0709.4488 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Blondin, T

    S. Blondin, T. M. Davis, K. Krisciunas, B. P. Schmidt, J. Sollerman, W. M. Wood-Vasey, A. C. Becker, P. Challis, A. Clocchiatti and G. Damke, et al. Astrophys. J. 682, 724-736 (2008) doi:10.1086/589568 [arXiv:0804.3595 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [31]

    R. M. T. White et al. [DES], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 533, no.3, 3365-3378 (2024) doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2008 [arXiv:2406.05050 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [32]

    An interpretation of cosmological model with variable light velocity,

    J. P. Petit, “An interpretation of cosmological model with variable light velocity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A. 3, 1527–1532 (1988) doi:10.1142/S0217732388001823

    1988 doi

  26. [33]

    Cosmological model with variable light velocity: the interpretation of red shifts,

    J. P. Petit, “Cosmological model with variable light velocity: the interpretation of red shifts,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A. 3, 1733–1744 (1988) doi:10.1142/S0217732388002099

    1988 doi

  27. [34]

    Gauge cosmological model with variable light velocity. Comparizon with QSO observational data,

    J. P. Petit and M. Viton, “Gauge cosmological model with variable light velocity. Comparizon with QSO observational data,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A.4, 2201–2210 (1989) doi:10.1142/S0217732389002471

    1989 doi

  28. [35]

    Scale invariant cosmology,

    P. Midy and J P. Petit, “Scale invariant cosmology,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 8, 271–280 (1989)

    1989

  29. [36]

    Cosmologies with varying light speed,

    J. D. Barrow, “Cosmologies with varying light speed,” Phy. Rev. D. 59, 043515 (1988) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043515 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811022 [astro-ph]]

    1988 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Superluminary universe: A Possible solution to the initial value problem in cosmol- ogy,

    J. W. Moffat, “Superluminary universe: A Possible solution to the initial value problem in cosmol- ogy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 2, 351-366 (1993) doi:10.1142/S0218271893000246 [arXiv:gr-qc/9211020 [gr-qc]]

    1993 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Twin Universe Cosmology,

    J. P. Petit, “Twin Universe Cosmology,” Astrophys. Sp. Science. 226, 273 (1995) Bib- code:1995Ap&SS.226..273P. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.692.7762. doi:10.1007/bf00627375

    1995 doi

  32. [39]

    A Time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles,

    A. Albrecht and J. Magueijo, “A Time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 043516 (1999) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.043516 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811018 [astro- ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Solutions to the quasi-flatness and quasi lambda problems,

    J. D. Barrow and J. Magueijo, “Solutions to the quasi-flatness and quasi lambda problems,” Phys. Lett. B 447, 246 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00008-8 [arXiv:astro-ph/9811073 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Dynamical mechanism for varying light velocity as a solution to cosmological problems,

    M. A. Clayton and J. W. Moffat, “Dynamical mechanism for varying light velocity as a solution to cosmological problems,” Phys. Lett. B 460, 263-270 (1999) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(99)00774-1 [arXiv:astro-ph/9812481 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Solving the flatness and quasiflatness problems in Brans-Dicke cosmologies with a varying light speed,

    J. D. Barrow and J. Magueijo, “Solving the flatness and quasiflatness problems in Brans-Dicke cosmologies with a varying light speed,” Class. Quant. Grav.16, 1435-1454 (1999) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/16/4/030 [arXiv:astro-ph/9901049 [astro-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Scalar tensor gravity theory for dynamical light velocity,

    M. A. Clayton and J. W. Moffat, “Scalar tensor gravity theory for dynamical light velocity,” Phys. Lett. B 477, 269-275 (2000) doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00192-1 [arXiv:gr-qc/9910112 [gr-qc]]

    2000 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Imaginative cosmology,

    R. H. Brandenberger and J. Magueijo, “Imaginative cosmology,” [arXiv:hep-ph/9912247 [hep-ph]]. 15

    arXiv

  38. [45]

    Geometrodynamics of variable speed of light cosmologies,

    B. A. Bassett, S. Liberati, C. Molina-Paris and M. Visser, “Geometrodynamics of variable speed of light cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 103518 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103518 [arXiv:astro- ph/0001441 [astro-ph]]

    2000

  39. [46]

    Solutions to cosmological problems with en- ergy conservation and varying c, G and Lambda,

    P. Gopakumar and G. V. Vijayagovindan, “Solutions to cosmological problems with en- ergy conservation and varying c, G and Lambda,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 957-962 (2001) doi:10.1142/S0217732301004042 [arXiv:gr-qc/0003098 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Covariant and locally Lorentz invariant varying speed of light theories,

    J. Magueijo, “Covariant and locally Lorentz invariant varying speed of light theories,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 103521 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.62.103521 [arXiv:gr-qc/0007036 [gr-qc]]

    2000 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Stars and black holes in varying speed of light theories,

    J. Magueijo, “Stars and black holes in varying speed of light theories,” Phys. Rev. D 63, 043502 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.043502 [arXiv:astro-ph/0010591 [astro-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  42. [49]

    New varying speed of light theories,

    J. Magueijo, “New varying speed of light theories,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 66, 2025 (2003) doi:10.1088/0034-4885/66/11/R04 [arXiv:astro-ph/0305457 [astro-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Comments on ’Note on varying speed of light theories’,

    J. Magueijo and J. W. Moffat, “Comments on ’Note on varying speed of light theories’,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1797-1806 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10714-007-0568-2 [arXiv:0705.4507 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Bigravity: A Bimetric model of the Universe with variable constants, inluding VSL (variable speed of light),

    J. P. Petit and G. d’Agostini, “Bigravity: A Bimetric model of the Universe with variable constants, inluding VSL (variable speed of light),” [arXiv:0803.1362 [math-ph]]

    arXiv

  45. [52]

    Cosmological solutions of time varying speed of light theories,

    M. Roshan, M. Nouri and F. Shojai, “Cosmological solutions of time varying speed of light theories,” Phys. Lett. B 672, 197-202 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.042 [arXiv:0901.3191 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  46. [53]

    About some possible empirical evidences in favor of a cosmological time variation of the speed of light.,

    Y. H. Sanejouand, “About some possible empirical evidences in favor of a cosmological time variation of the speed of light.,” Europhys. Lett. 88, 59002 (2009) [arXiv:0908.0249]

    2009 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Variation of the speed of light with temperature of the expand- ing universe,

    C. Nassif and A. C. Amaro de Faria, “Variation of the speed of light with temperature of the expand- ing universe,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012), 027703 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.027703 [arXiv:1205.2298 [gr-qc]]

    2012 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Variable Speed of Light Cosmology, Primordial Fluctuations and Gravitational Waves,

    J. W. Moffat, “Variable Speed of Light Cosmology, Primordial Fluctuations and Gravitational Waves,” Eur. Phys. J. C 76, no.3, 130 (2016) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3971-6 [arXiv:1404.5567 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Normal DGP in varying speed of light cosmology,

    A. Ravanpak, H. Farajollahi and G. F. Fadakar, “Normal DGP in varying speed of light cosmology,” Res. Astron. Astrophys. 17, no.3, 26 (2017) doi:10.1088/1674-4527/17/3/26 [arXiv:1703.09811 [gr- qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Covariant c-flation: a varia- tional approach,

    R. Costa, R. R. Cuzinatto, E. M. G. Ferreira and G. Franzmann, “Covariant c-flation: a varia- tional approach,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, no.09, 1950119 (2019) doi:10.1142/S0218271819501190 [arXiv:1705.03461 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Variation of the speed of light and a minimum speed in the sce- nario of an inflationary universe with accelerated expansion,

    C. Nassif and F. A. Silva, “Variation of the speed of light and a minimum speed in the sce- nario of an inflationary universe with accelerated expansion,” Phys. Dark Universe, 22, 127 (2018) [arXiv:2009.05397 [physics.gen-ph]]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    C. T. Chiang and A. Slosar, [arXiv:1811.03624 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Aylor, M

    K. Aylor, M. Joy, L. Knox, M. Millea, S. Raghunathan and W. L. K. Wu, Astrophys. J. 874, no.1, 4 (2019) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0898 [arXiv:1811.00537 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Agrawal, F

    P. Agrawal, F. Y. Cyr-Racine, D. Pinner and L. Randall, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101347 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101347 [arXiv:1904.01016 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023

  55. [63]

    Knox and M

    L. Knox and M. Millea, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.4, 043533 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043533 [arXiv:1908.03663 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Sekiguchi and T

    T. Sekiguchi and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.8, 083507 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083507 [arXiv:2007.03381 [astro-ph.CO]]. 16

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    N. Lee, Y. Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, N. Sch¨ oneberg and V. Poulin, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.16, 161003 (2023) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.161003 [arXiv:2212.04494 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Sch¨ oneberg and L

    N. Sch¨ oneberg and L. Vacher, JCAP 03, 004 (2025) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/03/004 [arXiv:2407.16845 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Chatrchyan, F

    A. Chatrchyan, F. Niedermann, V. Poulin and M. S. Sloth, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.4, 043536 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.043536 [arXiv:2408.14537 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    S. H. Mirpoorian, K. Jedamzik and L. Pogosian, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.8, 083519 (2025) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083519 [arXiv:2411.16678 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [69]

    T. L. Smith and N. Sch¨ oneberg, [arXiv:2503.20002 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Lee, Phys

    S. Lee, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101984 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101984

    2025

  63. [71]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 [arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    D. W. Hogg, [arXiv:astro-ph/9905116 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    D. J. Eisenstein, H. j. Seo, E. Sirko and D. Spergel, Astrophys. J. 664, 675-679 (2007) doi:10.1086/518712 [arXiv:astro-ph/0604362 [astro-ph]]

    2007 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Blake, E

    C. Blake, E. Kazin, F. Beutler, T. Davis, D. Parkinson, S. Brough, M. Colless, C. Contr- eras, W. Couch and S. Croom, et al. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 418, 1707-1724 (2011) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19592.x [arXiv:1108.2635 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2011

  67. [75]

    Anderson et al

    L. Anderson et al. [BOSS], Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 441, no.1, 24-62 (2014) doi:10.1093/mnras/stu523 [arXiv:1312.4877 [astro-ph.CO]]. 17

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.